This is a note posted to the CEDA Forums at http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php/topic,5407.msg11974.html#msg11974
The note is from Mike Hester, an extremely successful and influential policy debate coach at University of West Georgia. I have had a lot of respect for him through the years.
-Alfred Snider, editor
To whom it may concern,
CEDA-NDT Debate is a hot mess right now. There are so many things wrong, it can sometimes seem like they're all related. Maybe they are (reference Homer Simpson's "one big ball of lies" explanation to Marge), but a delineation may still provide some guidance as to what we can change, what we may have to accept, and where (if anywhere) we may go from here...
the foundation
We no longer have one, and haven't for more than two decades. Fewer and fewer debate coaches are communication scholars, which is fine because Communication Departments don't consider us anything more than the bastard cousins who show up at the family reunion piss-drunk and demanding more potato salad. Our activity long ago (40 years?) lost any resemblance to a public speaking event attracting outside audiences. The problem is we vacated that academic space without being able to find a home anywhere else. Despite the pious assumptions of some with "policy" in mind, we are not a legitimate "research" community of scholars. The "portable skills" we currently engrain in our students via practice are: all sources are equivalent, no need for qualifications; "quoting" a source simply means underlining ANY words found ANYWHERE in the document, context and intent are irrelevant; and we are the only group outside of Faux News that believes one's argument is improved by taking every point of logic to its most absurd extreme. Simply put, 99.9% of the speech docs produced in debates would receive no better than a C (more likely F) in any upper division undergraduate research-based class. Comically, we are the public speaking research activity that is atrocious at oral persuasion and woefully in violation of any standard research practices. But this letter is not intended to bury Debate, even though it's hard to praise it in its current state. Before any peace treaty ending the Paradigm Wars can be signed and ratified, an honest appraisal of where Debate fits in the Academy is necessary.
battle lines drawn in sinking sands
This letter will not include a call for unity. It's not clear that such a "coming together" is either possible or even beneficial. But it is necessary to take a moment to publicly correct those who believe there defecation products are odorless.
First, we all should feel ashamed for running Gary Larson off. Yes, all of us. If you think you're not responsible, and it's those other people who are to blame, you are wrong. Honestly, we don't deserve a person of Gary's talents and integrity right now. If we manage to improve our activity to the point where one day, we do deserve such a person, hopefully that person will be around to be the kind of positive force Gary has been. Every single one of us owes him a debt of gratitude.
Second, contrary to what your friends may have told you in your secret meeting or special Facebook page, there is no faction which has avoided doing and saying stupid things in this craptastrophe. Devolving our disagreements into a "but they did it first" shows just how low we have sunk in terms of bad arguments. Hateful and ignorant statements have been made by nearly everyone who has felt the need to express themselves, especially in the heat of competition (which includes not just the rounds themselves, but more likely the times before and after rounds). This is not to say that feelings should always be spared. When issues of discrimination and structural inequality are in play, discomfort isn't just inevitable, it is frequently required in order to make the needed changes. Sadly, because we are imperfect, we have used our rightful indignation to rationalize behavior that is counterproductive if we are interested in resolving conflicts and hypocritical if we are claiming to advocate for social justice.
Ultimately, everyone has to ask themselves this: are you interested in being a part of a functioning community of scholarship with people who are different than you (however defined)? If the answer is 'no', then it makes no sense to stick around throwing stink bombs - you don't have to go home, but you oughta leave the place you call hell. If the answer is 'yes', then it makes no sense to stick around throwing stink bombs - advocate solutions that can attract enough support to become actionable reforms.
a growing To-Do List
We have a lot that needs fixing. Here's an incomplete list, in no particular order:
- our debates are incoherent. There were at least four instances of card-clipping at Wake. And an honest assessment of our practices would likely reveal more. If we could actually understand what debaters were saying. Reading regularly unqualified sources at incomprehensible speeds is hardly the foundation upon which to build any academic co-curricular activity, let alone one that couches its own credentials in public policy deliberation. If we want to be taken seriously as contributing to public discourse over public policy, we have to come to grips with how bad we have become at oral presentation of argument and scholarly presentation of quality research.
- our debates are too shallow and stale given the time commitment we make. Debating Heg every round every topic doesn't further our understanding of the resolution any more, nor is it any less intellectually lazy, than turning fights about the latest Facebook conspiracy theories into a 1AC. Debaters have wrongly conflated winning ballots with confirmation that their arguments make any sense. MPJ has allowed us to "preach to the choir" so often, we have wrongly concluded that we're cute when we're preachy.
- our community has a current imbalance between the diversity of its student body and the makeup of its coaching/judging pool. Current efforts to increase minority representation in judge placement are seriously limited by the lack of numbers in underrepresented demographic categories. Until we have more people of color in the grad assistant and director ranks, these efforts will have very low ceilings of accomplishment. But in order to increase those numbers, those who have refused to acknowledge the connection between HOW we debate WHAT we debate and WHO wants to debate (and judge/coach) will have to put down their "but some of my best friends who like plan-focus debates are black" rationalization and be prepared to compromise more than they've been willing to so far.
- we lack the trust required for voluntary goodwill and a foundation of "best practices" required to have a "code of conduct" that makes any sense. When an allegation of card-clipping can be refuted by saying "that wasn't clipping, it was just incomprehensible spreading" it's time to acknowledge our standards have sunk too low. When incompetence is the alibi to deny cheating, you have forfeited any moral high ground upon which to tell others they are playing the game wrong. Likewise, if you believe students and coaches of a particular program have committed "racist" or "sexist" acts, then contact the appropriate authorities and file a lawsuit. Otherwise, stop alleging things that should trigger such responses. If our debaters don't know the rhetorical difference between claiming "our opponent has made a sexist argument that warrants a voting issue" and "our opponents are irredeemably sexist", then we have failed as communication scholars to educate them and need to do a better job. This is not a denial of some messed up shit having occurred in our interactions, but the folks who are employed at universities need to wake up and smell the liability - we should either be bringing people before the appropriate authorities or toning down our venom. Otherwise, the notion that allegations are being thrown around just to win debates begins to gain credence, and any real chance to improve the activity is reduced as real problems are trivialized as competitive tactics.
And it's this last point that precludes any demand to "come together." Debate is extra-curricular and we all work for and/or attend different institutions. We have no obligation to "get along." If some of us truly believe others of us are evil or incapable of being peers, then we should cleave, go our own ways and find a group of people /institutions with which we can commune in mutual respect. Because the nerves are so raw right now, it may seem that mutual respect is impossible. It will certainly require a willingness on all sides to stop acting like victims of wrongdoing (even where such feelings are warranted). Because that seems impossible at this time, it is not the focus of this letter.
Rather, what has been laid out is an outline of some of the main questions we must confront. What defines our activity as a worthwhile endeavor deserving of university support? What parameters of how we best practice "debate" help reinforce those definitional criteria? What responsibilities do each of us have as members of our activity to maintain and nurture the activity itself? What obligations do we have to the other members of this activity, and to those who - if given the chance - would like to be a member?
The paradigmatic disruptions occurring have given us a crisi-trinity to address these questions with deep self-reflection and comprehensive conversation. It would behoove all of us to remember that none of us - either individually or as a group - is so important as to be "too big to fail." Debate does not need us, not any of us. What we have to determine is whether we need debate, and if so, how do we keep it going in the ways that fulfill those needs.
To whom it may concern,
CEDA-NDT Debate is a hot mess right now. There are so many things wrong, it can sometimes seem like they're all related. Maybe they are (reference Homer Simpson's "one big ball of lies" explanation to Marge), but a delineation may still provide some guidance as to what we can change, what we may have to accept, and where (if anywhere) we may go from here...
the foundation
We no longer have one, and haven't for more than two decades. Fewer and fewer debate coaches are communication scholars, which is fine because Communication Departments don't consider us anything more than the bastard cousins who show up at the family reunion piss-drunk and demanding more potato salad. Our activity long ago (40 years?) lost any resemblance to a public speaking event attracting outside audiences. The problem is we vacated that academic space without being able to find a home anywhere else. Despite the pious assumptions of some with "policy" in mind, we are not a legitimate "research" community of scholars. The "portable skills" we currently engrain in our students via practice are: all sources are equivalent, no need for qualifications; "quoting" a source simply means underlining ANY words found ANYWHERE in the document, context and intent are irrelevant; and we are the only group outside of Faux News that believes one's argument is improved by taking every point of logic to its most absurd extreme. Simply put, 99.9% of the speech docs produced in debates would receive no better than a C (more likely F) in any upper division undergraduate research-based class. Comically, we are the public speaking research activity that is atrocious at oral persuasion and woefully in violation of any standard research practices. But this letter is not intended to bury Debate, even though it's hard to praise it in its current state. Before any peace treaty ending the Paradigm Wars can be signed and ratified, an honest appraisal of where Debate fits in the Academy is necessary.
battle lines drawn in sinking sands
This letter will not include a call for unity. It's not clear that such a "coming together" is either possible or even beneficial. But it is necessary to take a moment to publicly correct those who believe there defecation products are odorless.
First, we all should feel ashamed for running Gary Larson off. Yes, all of us. If you think you're not responsible, and it's those other people who are to blame, you are wrong. Honestly, we don't deserve a person of Gary's talents and integrity right now. If we manage to improve our activity to the point where one day, we do deserve such a person, hopefully that person will be around to be the kind of positive force Gary has been. Every single one of us owes him a debt of gratitude.
Second, contrary to what your friends may have told you in your secret meeting or special Facebook page, there is no faction which has avoided doing and saying stupid things in this craptastrophe. Devolving our disagreements into a "but they did it first" shows just how low we have sunk in terms of bad arguments. Hateful and ignorant statements have been made by nearly everyone who has felt the need to express themselves, especially in the heat of competition (which includes not just the rounds themselves, but more likely the times before and after rounds). This is not to say that feelings should always be spared. When issues of discrimination and structural inequality are in play, discomfort isn't just inevitable, it is frequently required in order to make the needed changes. Sadly, because we are imperfect, we have used our rightful indignation to rationalize behavior that is counterproductive if we are interested in resolving conflicts and hypocritical if we are claiming to advocate for social justice.
Ultimately, everyone has to ask themselves this: are you interested in being a part of a functioning community of scholarship with people who are different than you (however defined)? If the answer is 'no', then it makes no sense to stick around throwing stink bombs - you don't have to go home, but you oughta leave the place you call hell. If the answer is 'yes', then it makes no sense to stick around throwing stink bombs - advocate solutions that can attract enough support to become actionable reforms.
a growing To-Do List
We have a lot that needs fixing. Here's an incomplete list, in no particular order:
- our debates are incoherent. There were at least four instances of card-clipping at Wake. And an honest assessment of our practices would likely reveal more. If we could actually understand what debaters were saying. Reading regularly unqualified sources at incomprehensible speeds is hardly the foundation upon which to build any academic co-curricular activity, let alone one that couches its own credentials in public policy deliberation. If we want to be taken seriously as contributing to public discourse over public policy, we have to come to grips with how bad we have become at oral presentation of argument and scholarly presentation of quality research.
- our debates are too shallow and stale given the time commitment we make. Debating Heg every round every topic doesn't further our understanding of the resolution any more, nor is it any less intellectually lazy, than turning fights about the latest Facebook conspiracy theories into a 1AC. Debaters have wrongly conflated winning ballots with confirmation that their arguments make any sense. MPJ has allowed us to "preach to the choir" so often, we have wrongly concluded that we're cute when we're preachy.
- our community has a current imbalance between the diversity of its student body and the makeup of its coaching/judging pool. Current efforts to increase minority representation in judge placement are seriously limited by the lack of numbers in underrepresented demographic categories. Until we have more people of color in the grad assistant and director ranks, these efforts will have very low ceilings of accomplishment. But in order to increase those numbers, those who have refused to acknowledge the connection between HOW we debate WHAT we debate and WHO wants to debate (and judge/coach) will have to put down their "but some of my best friends who like plan-focus debates are black" rationalization and be prepared to compromise more than they've been willing to so far.
- we lack the trust required for voluntary goodwill and a foundation of "best practices" required to have a "code of conduct" that makes any sense. When an allegation of card-clipping can be refuted by saying "that wasn't clipping, it was just incomprehensible spreading" it's time to acknowledge our standards have sunk too low. When incompetence is the alibi to deny cheating, you have forfeited any moral high ground upon which to tell others they are playing the game wrong. Likewise, if you believe students and coaches of a particular program have committed "racist" or "sexist" acts, then contact the appropriate authorities and file a lawsuit. Otherwise, stop alleging things that should trigger such responses. If our debaters don't know the rhetorical difference between claiming "our opponent has made a sexist argument that warrants a voting issue" and "our opponents are irredeemably sexist", then we have failed as communication scholars to educate them and need to do a better job. This is not a denial of some messed up shit having occurred in our interactions, but the folks who are employed at universities need to wake up and smell the liability - we should either be bringing people before the appropriate authorities or toning down our venom. Otherwise, the notion that allegations are being thrown around just to win debates begins to gain credence, and any real chance to improve the activity is reduced as real problems are trivialized as competitive tactics.
And it's this last point that precludes any demand to "come together." Debate is extra-curricular and we all work for and/or attend different institutions. We have no obligation to "get along." If some of us truly believe others of us are evil or incapable of being peers, then we should cleave, go our own ways and find a group of people /institutions with which we can commune in mutual respect. Because the nerves are so raw right now, it may seem that mutual respect is impossible. It will certainly require a willingness on all sides to stop acting like victims of wrongdoing (even where such feelings are warranted). Because that seems impossible at this time, it is not the focus of this letter.
Rather, what has been laid out is an outline of some of the main questions we must confront. What defines our activity as a worthwhile endeavor deserving of university support? What parameters of how we best practice "debate" help reinforce those definitional criteria? What responsibilities do each of us have as members of our activity to maintain and nurture the activity itself? What obligations do we have to the other members of this activity, and to those who - if given the chance - would like to be a member?
The paradigmatic disruptions occurring have given us a crisi-trinity to address these questions with deep self-reflection and comprehensive conversation. It would behoove all of us to remember that none of us - either individually or as a group - is so important as to be "too big to fail." Debate does not need us, not any of us. What we have to determine is whether we need debate, and if so, how do we keep it going in the ways that fulfill those needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment